Riedel: $18 Million 'Pirate' A Historic Flop- Page 2

[whatever2]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 6:11pm

unclench, mighty dog ... there was nothing snotty intended in my post, and certainly nothing so ragingly snotty that it required such a vitriolic response.

relax -- go see a show or something ...

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 6:30pm

He has a right, as a journalist, to tell the truth. That's all he did. If the truth hurts, get thicker skin.

Or stop gushing over stupid "musicals" like Pirate Spleen.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 6:32pm

Calling Reidel a "journalist" is stretching things a bit

[WellIfYouInsist]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 6:36pm

I really want to see Maltby's rewrites! I knew he couldn't have only wanted the few changes that happened to occur.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 6:43pm

A show can make almost no significant money back after two years because the weekly intake of money may only cover weekly costs, with no profit.

It's like opening a store and buying all products for $2 and selling them at that same price. You then take that money and send it out to buy more of the product...where is your money for taxes and other costs?

[wickedfan]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 7:06pm

The year Sunset opened, it sold out every night, but the producers really saw none of that money because of a) Glen Close's extremely high salary that went up when she was nominated for a Tony and went up again when she won, b) the enormous weekly costs of the production (actors, musicians, dozens of technicians and stagehands), c) the monthly or weekly costs of the rent of the Minskoff, d) the enormous amount of money that went into the advertising campaign, e) ALW's royalty fees (though he was a producer), f) I'm sure there were royalty fees for Billy Wilder or Paramount, and there are probably countless other things I'm leaving out. But that alone is a lot of money to be spending every week/month.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 7:46pm

I am a huge fan of Reidel's. He is rarely wrong.

[me2]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 7:50pm

There's a difference between offering a critique (i.e. "It was a horrendous show"--never saw it; this is just an example) and gleefully dancing on the grave. This was gleeful dancing. Jerk.
Broadway Blog: Only One Night Only (The Tonys Post)

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 7:57pm

I agree. This is NOT the 80's anymore. People don't want this garbage anymore. Bring more artsy stuff like SPRING and GREY. Trying to bring a musical in the style of the BIG 1980's mega-million musicals just isn't working anymore.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 8:01pm

Nothing wrong with being happy that a piece of crap closed.

Several of us predicted this before the show even opened.

[WordedGrace]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 8:02pm

Totally agree that the 80's style musical of big songs and big sets without much else isn't going to work nowadays. I can speak for myself and say I want to be entralled from start to finish or at least not want to smack my bf for dragging me there or praying I don't snore too loudly.

[XOXOXO]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 8:04pm

i actually know of someone good friends with richard maltby and i was talking to him about his work on the show. and everything he said or rather that he was planning seemed like some of the most brilliant ideas ever. but when i saw the show, as much as i loved it, i could tell that a lot of his genious ideas were completely ignored.

actually someone who worked on the show told me that a bit before the show was frozen, richard was trying hard to do some last minute rewrites but instead of listening to him and fixing things that could have made the show that much better, he was yet again ignored and the show wasnt as great as it could have been.

what i think happened to this show is that it jumped into broadway when it just wasnt ready. with a little more time i think this show could be the next big hit, but it just needs more time and more work done.

its really a shame!

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 9:18pm

I still love that people are trying to defend this show. Yes, we are all entitled to our own opinion, but if:

1. Sales Were Slow = Little Appeal to Tourists
2. Bad Out of Town Word of Mouth
3. Bad Out of Town Reviews
4. Bad NY Word of Mouth
5. Bad NY Reviews

Sure, enjoy it, but with the 5 items listed above are clear signs that this show isn't up to Broadway standards. The pop-opera is dead. Woman in White sunk, as did this one. So, feel free to love it, but don't berate those (read:most everyone) who sees this show for what it is: A Big Fat Turkey.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 9:35pm

"Reidel seems to get his jollies reporting on a shows demise"

Which is different from most of the people who post here, how?

The moment the first preview is over ( for any show ), people are reporting on how bad this was, or that was, just guessing how long before it closes.

Before pointing the finger at Reidel, maybe it should be pointed at most people on this board.

( and i ain't no fan of the show never seen it, never will )

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 9:37pm

And besides, it's not like we weren't all thinking it. What, did people think it WASN'T a big flop?

[James885]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 9:37pm

$18 Million? Wow and I thought their investment was $16 million. What's ironic is that Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which also cost an outregeous amount of money, flopped in the same theatre. So far, the only show to turn a profit in the Hilton is The Grinch.

I guess we'll see if Young Frankenstein can make money in this enormous barn of a theatre.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 9:41pm

Actually, Grinch was a flop as well. Becuase of it's limited run, it didn't make back it's money.

Now that I think about it, hasn't every show to play this theatre flopped financially?

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 9:47pm

"Before pointing the finger at Reidel, maybe it should be pointed at most people on this board."

Since this board has SO much power.

[caitiesus1522]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 9:59pm

Yeah, I am tkaing glee in this news. The show sucked. I am sure Jason will agree

[B3TA07]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 10:05pm

Who is Jason?

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 10:07pm

caitie, I know you don't like the show, but I think it's a little harsh to be taking glee that someone lost $18 million dollars.

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 10:23pm

Tanz der Vampire
Steinman's big musical success, though, was "Tanz der Vampire" (in English: Dance of the Vampires), which opened in Vienna, Austria on October 4, 1997. From the day of the world premiere, to January 7, 1999, Steve Barton played the leading role of Graf von Krolock here.

Based on Roman Polanski's movie The Fearless Vampire Killers, and directed by Polanski himself, Tanz der Vampire won six International musical awards, at the International Musical Award Germany (IMAGE 199, in Düsseldorf. The musical played in Stuttgart from March 31, 2000 until August 31, 2003 and in Hamburg from December 7, 2003 until January 22, 2006. In December 2006, the show premiered at the "Theater des Westens" in Berlin, where it can be seen currently.

However, about 70% of the musical score written by Steinman was recycled from his earlier projects, mainly from his less-known shows like The Dream Engine and The Confidence Man (co written with Ray Errol Fox), although it also features music from his widely known records like "Total Eclipse of the Heart" (remade as "Totale Finsternis") and the melody, but not the lyric from a Bat Out Of Hell 2 song called "Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are" (remade as "Die Unstillbare Gier").

The English version opened on October 16, 2002 on Broadway in a new production without Polanski, directed by Urinetown's John Rando. This production had a new script, written primarily by David Ives, that was very different from that of the German show, featuring a lot of jokes. The humor received some laughter, and also much criticism. The English version borrowed a lot from Steinman's lyrics for his previous English versions of his songs. It was critically lambasted and closed on January 25, 2003 after 117 performances. The work of lead performer Michael Crawford, who had played the lead in Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera in the 1980s, was reviewed particularly harshly. To date, it is the biggest financial flop in Broadway history, losing roughly $17 million, easily eclipsing the infamous Carrie (based on the film of the same name). Rumor has it that Steinman did not attend opening night as a showing of dissaproval for the project. On his blog Steinman writes "DOTV as we know was UTTER SH*T!" in one post, and describes the production as a "**** pile" in another.
(source: Wikipedia)

So, "Dance of the Vampires", at that time, was considered the biggest flop when it lost about $17 million. If "Pirate Queen" winds up losing $18 million, then it appears to hold the record for biggest financial loss of any Broadway show in history. Wow... from RC in Austin, Texas

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 10:33pm

$18 million is a TON of money. and I do feel bad for Steph Block, easily the Hugh Panero of this season.

But I agree with BobbyBubby. The show blows, and when shows blow, they lose money. It's Reidel's job to report on this stuff, and he really is hardly EVER wrong, so I find it tough to not defend him, especially in this case.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 11:15pm

"Now that The Pirate Queen has announced it will end its Broadway run June 17, producers of Young Frankenstein have made the long-gestating rumors official. The new Mel Brooks musical will play the Hilton Theatre."
Young Frankenstein to Begin Previews at the Hilton Theatre in October

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 6/7/07 at 11:25pm

they made it official a while ago prior to the closing notice which is why they're all jerks.